Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Not really. You need to remember that we write tests not to show
off the new shiny, but to protect essential invariants from being
broken by careless others attempting to rewrite the implementation
in the future.
Fair enough. You are the boss.
I am not, therefore it does not matter what I think,
It is not that it does not matter because you are not the boss; it
is just that when you are wrong, you are wrong.
You said in your response to Michael:
the difference between the "touch yep" ... and
the test originally suggested is ...
not the extent to which the new code is actually verified.
If your "verification" is based on "faith", you are correct. You
may be "verifying" the code to the right extent, i.e. "Yes, what I
wrote is actually run, and I write perfect code every time, so what
it does must be correct, as long as it gets run".
But I do not have faith in people who will be touching the relevant
code in the future; "Yes, it is triggered" is far from satisfactory
without faith like yours in the code being tested.
I actually do not have much faith in what I write myself ;-). That
is why we have tests.
Hi Junio,
On Tue, 2 Dec 2014, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
quoted
Not really. You need to remember that we write tests not to show
off the new shiny, but to protect essential invariants from being
broken by careless others attempting to rewrite the implementation
in the future.
Fair enough. You are the boss.
I am not, therefore it does not matter what I think,
It is not that it does not matter because you are not the boss; it
is just that when you are wrong, you are wrong.
Please, there is no need to get emotional, let alone personal.
I am not really interested in challenging your policy regarding the test
suite, even if it does hurt my development style where I want to run the
test suite frequently but its tests just take too long because their focus
is more on thoroughness rather than trying to save time in the manner I
suggested (i.e. by only lightly testing obscure code paths that will be
executed rarely, risking bugs in favor of adding tests when fixing said
bugs when – and if – they arise). There is nothing inherently wrong in the
way you want to have the test suite, it is a matter of preference, that is
all. I would like a more light-weight test suite that runs much faster,
you want a thorough one, even if it takes more time to run.
So: you are the boss, you do the things you do, and my opinion does not
matter. I say this most pragmatically, to save more time by ending this
discussion now. There are no hard feelings on my side.
Ciao,
Johannes